Gross, Martin

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement is associated with high postoperative patient satisfaction. Patients often express concerns about postoperative penile length. There is scant evidence in the literature of clinical and surgical factors that predict IPP length. Objective To evaluate predictors of cylinder length for men undergoing primary IPP placement in a large multicenter cohort. Methods Patients undergoing primary IPP placement for treatment of erectile dysfunction at 16 high-volume implant centers were included. All patients had preoperative demographics, surgical characteristics, and device length retrospectively collected at their respective institutions and combined for analysis. Descriptive statistics were reported for the full group. Univariate analysis was utilized to isolate variables significantly associated with device length and all variables reaching p<0.1 were included in linear regression modeling. Results 3,953 men underwent primary IPP placement. The mean age was 61.8±10.4 years and BMI was 29.8±4.2 kg/m2. The mean total device length was 20.6±2.1cm. 1291 (32.7%) had diabetes mellitus, 641 (16.2%) were smokers, 705 (17.8%) had a prior radical prostatectomy, 195 (4.9%) had prior radiation, 549 (13.9%) had Peyronie’s disease, and 884 (22.4%) had a history of intracavernosal injections. In univariate analysis, BMI (B=0.05, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.07, p<0.001), a history of Peyronie’s disease (20.4 vs 20.6cm, p=0.02), and use of intracavernosal injection (20.7 v 20.9cm, p=0.02) were predictors of shorter total device length. Use of rear tip extenders (20.7 v 20.0cm, p<0.001), penoscrotal approach (21.0 v 20.3, p<0.001), and single corporal dilation (20.8 v 20.4cm, p<0.001) were associated with longer length. In multivariable analysis, a history of Peyronie’s disease (B=-0.29, 95%CI -0.47 to -0.11, p=0.002) and greater BMI (B=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.07, p<0.001) were predictors of shorter total device length. Independent predictors of longer device length were penoscrotal approach (B=-0.85, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.65, p<0.001), rear tip extender use (B=1.00, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.17, p<0.001), and single corporal dilation (B=-0.5, 95%CI -0.67 to -0.34, p<0.001). Conclusions In this series, Peyronie’s disease and greater BMI are independent predictors of shorter IPP device length, while use of rear tip extenders, single corporal dilation, and penoscrotal approach are independent predictors of longer device length. These results are important in counseling patients regarding expectations of postoperative length. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis, Urofill, Boston Scientific, Endo Pharma, Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma

Abstract Introduction Predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement have not been well-delineated in the literature. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) can offer high satisfaction rates of patients, but this procedure is not without complications that can be encountered intraoperatively and postoperatively. Particularly, predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications in IPP placement have not been well-delineated in the literature. Objective We evaluated our retrospective multi-institutional database of IPP surgeries performed by expert implant surgeons to identify risk factors that are predictive of the development of these non-infectious complications. Methods IPP cases performed by sixteen international implanters from 2016-2021 were identified. All primary and revision cases were included. Salvage cases for infection were excluded. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Poor corporal integrity (PCI) was defined as intraoperative corporal complications (proximal and/or distal perforation of the corpora, corporal crossover) or postoperative corporal complications (cylinder erosion, extrusion, impending erosion, or deformity). Risk factor analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predictors of PCI. Results A total of 5406 IPP cases across 16 separate institutions were assessed. There were 163 (3.0%, mean age 64) cases of PCI. Of the 156 complications that occurred, 101 (64.7%) occurred intraoperatively, while 55 (35.3%) occurred postoperatively. The rates of diabetes (p=0.669), vascular disease (p=0.054), and history of intracavernosal injections (p=0.111) all had no statistically significant effect on corporal integrity. Patients with PCI tended to have hypertension (p=0.045), current smoking (p=0.03), history of IPP infection (p<0.001), and history of shunt for priapism (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, predictors of PCI include hypertension (OR 1.64 (1.09-2.47), p=0.018), history of IPP infection (OR 4.41 (2.52-7.84), p<0.001), and age (OR 1.02 (1.00-1.04), p=0.027). Obesity was found to be protective (OR 0.63 (0.42-0.95), p=0.027). Conclusions Our multicenter analysis found that hypertension, current smoking, history of IPP infection and age were risk factors for complications associated with poor corporal integrity. Recognizing these risk factors preoperatively can allow for improved patient-specific counseling and changes in surgical strategy to potentially prevent these complications. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast and Boston Scientific.

Abstract Introduction In primary implant patients without significant corporal fibrosis, penile implant surgical technique varies in implementation of either single dilation (SingD) or sequential dilation (SeqD). Vigorous debate exists regarding both methods, but there is no robust evidence supporting one technique over the other in the literature. Objective We compared the rates of intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes from a large international database of inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) performed by expert implant surgeons to determine if there were any significant differences in rates between SingD and SeqD. Methods We analyzed IPP cases performed by international implanters from 2016-2021. All primary implant cases were included, while revision cases, salvage operations, and patients with evidence of corporal fibrosis were excluded. Intraoperative complications and postoperative noninfectious outcomes were assessed between the two groups. These included proximal/distal perforation and cylinder crossover. Results After exclusion based on aforementioned criteria, we identified 3045 patients who underwent IPP. After 1:1 propensity matching of both groups, we analyzed 572 patients who underwent SingD and 572 patients who underwent SeqD. Between the two groups, more men of non-Caucasian race underwent SingD vs SeqD (p<0.001). There was a significant difference in cylinder length in the SeqD group vs the SingD group (20cm ± 1.5 vs. 20 cm ±2 respectively, p=0.018). There were 8 (0.7%) intraoperative complications in total, 7 in the SeqD group and 1 in the SingD group (p=0.034). Of these intraoperative complications, 3 (37.5%) patients who underwent SeqD sustained a proximal perforation, 3 (37.5%) sustained distal crossover, and 1 (12.5%) sustained proximal crossover. 1 patient (12.5%) with intraoperative complication who underwent SingD sustained a proximal perforation. Postoperatively, 78 (82%) of complications were in the SeqD group and 17 (18%) in the SingD group (p<0.001). Of these postoperative complications, there were 15 patients with bleeding or hematoma, of which 14 were in the SeqD group vs 1 in the SingD group (p<0.001). Of the 35 patients who were noted to have device-related malfunction, 29 underwent SeqD and 6 underwent SingD (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were more related to technical error in the SeqD vs the SingD group (11 patients and 1 patient respectively, p<0.011). On multivariate analysis, prior radical prostatectomy was predictive of intraoperative complications (OR 4.59 with IQR 1.39-15.16, p=0.024), while larger cylinder size seemed to be protective (OR 0.66 with IQR 0.50-0.89, p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, SeqD was predictive of postoperative complications (5.16 with IQR 3.01-8.83, p<0.001), as was history of priapism (4.15 with IQR 1.30-13.29, p=0.017). Patients who undergo SeqD may be calibrated by the surgeon to have more complex corpora, which could explain higher complication rates. We identified 3045 patients who underwent IPP. Conclusions In our international multicenter assessment of primary IPPs without corporal fibrosis performed by expert surgeons, patients undergoing single dilation appear to have slight benefit in total cylinder length. Sequential dilation may confer greater risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications, including bleeding and hematoma. Single dilation is a safe technique for primary inflatable penile prosthesis. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast and Boston Scientific

Abstract Introduction Medical policy bulletins (also known as clinical policy bulletins) are insurance company guidelines for administering plan benefits. These documents purport to summarize current research, evidence-based guidelines, regulatory status, and physician opinion to determine whether insurers consider procedures and services to be medically necessary. These bulletins, along with member benefit plans, determine which services are covered. We have previously explored the lack of uniformity that exists for insurance payer coverage for penile prostheses. Here, we sought to expand this investigation to determine insurance coverage criteria for medical and surgical management of common men’s health conditions. Objective To determine covered benefits for sexual medicine conditions among the top United States healthcare insurers. Methods A list of common sexual medicine conditions was generated, including Peyronie’s disease, hypogonadism, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, incontinence, and buried penis. The most common treatment modalities for each condition were identified (see Table I). Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings were used to identify the top ten largest private insurers in the United States by member enrollment. This list was cross-referenced with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 2020 Market Share Report (ref 1). The following list of the largest private US health insurers was thus developed: United, Anthem, Centene, Kaiser, Humana, CVS, Healthcare Service Corporation (HCSC), Cigna, Molina, and Independence Health Group (IBX). Kaiser and Centene were excluded due to lack of nationwide medical policy bulletins. We reviewed medical policy bulletins from the remaining 8 insurers to determine whether the specific treatments were identified as medically necessary, experimental/investigational, or cosmetic. Services and procedures deemed medically necessary were coded as “covered,” and those listed as investigational, or cosmetic were coded as “not covered.” If information about a specific condition or treatment modality was not found in a company’s policy bulletin, it was coded as “unknown.” Results In total, we recorded 143 data points, across the 8 insurance providers. Our review of medical policy bulletins yielded 60 (41.9%) instances where services were considered medically necessary and/or “covered”, 18 (12.6%) non-covered or investigational/cosmetic services, and 65 (45.5%) services with unknown coverage (Table I; covered=1, non-covered=0, unknown=2). Conclusions We encountered substantial difficulty in navigating and interpreting insurance coverage for various sexual medicine treatments and conditions based on review of policy bulletins from the topic insurance providers in the US. There was no readily identifiable coverage information for >45% of the data points that we collected, and instances of “unknown” coverage exceeded covered services across the collective of the largest private insurers. While 76.9% of conditions for which there was available data were covered, we are unable to draw generalizable conclusions for most conditions as there are significant deficits in the availability of policy information from online insurance sources. Further challenges in determining coverage include the additional layers of limitations in member plan benefits (i.e. plan exclusions), which could compound confusion for both physicians and patients. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast.

Abstract Introduction The American Urological Association (AUA) recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis in penile implant surgery are based on low quality evidence and expert opinion. Recent evidence suggests the recommended regimens may be suboptimal. Objective To determine if the AUA recommended antibiotic regimen (vancomycin + gentamicin) for primary penile implant surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard regimens. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary IPP surgery. Patients undergoing revision surgery or with a history of IPP placement were excluded. Additionally, patients who underwent concomitant procedures for Peyronie’s disease or stress urinary incontinence were excluded. Patients were divided into those receiving standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin) and those receiving any other (non-standard) antibiotic prophylaxis. The time to postoperative device explanation due to infection via a Cox regression model, the microorganisms involved, and the management of patients with device infection were evaluated. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. Results 4,161 patients underwent primary IPP placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1.0 vs 1.2% for standard vs non-standard prophylaxis. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the use of vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.74, 95%CI: 1.38-5.41, p=0.004) and diabetes (HR: 1.87, 95%CI: 1.03-3.39, p=0.04) were significantly associated with higher risk of device explantation due to infection. Concomitant infusion of antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95%CI: 0.03-0.19, p<0.001) was associated with lower risk of infection. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were the most frequently cultured microorganisms. Device infection was most commonly managed with salvage using a malleable prosthesis (40.4%). In patients of both groups receiving gentamicin as part of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the use of weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin was associated with similar risk of device explantation due to infection (HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, p = 0.1). Conclusions Vancomycin + gentamicin for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary penile implant surgery is independently associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. There does not appear to be a difference in weight-based vs low dose (80mg) gentamicin on infection risk. Our results further demonstrate the importance of antifungal use in prophylaxis regimens. Additionally, a critical review of the recommended prophylactic regimens is needed. Tailoring individual regimens to local antibiograms may provide the best infection prevention. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Boston Scientific, Antares Pharma, Clarus Therapeutics, Cynosure, Promescent, Sprout, Viome.

Abstract Background Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient. Aim To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant. Methods We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher’s exact and Pearson’s chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates. Outcomes The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates. Results Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates. Clinical Implications Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision. Strengths and Limitations Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables. Conclusion The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection.